“Did you read the article? It was because these temples are NOT public houses of worship (only a few select members can get it)...”
Yes, I read the article. By its definition, the Holy of Holies in Jerusalem should have been taxed because only the High Priest entered there.
A public house of worship is not where every citizen gets equal treatment. Non-christians are asked to skip the Lord’s Supper in our church. Many churches refuse to marry someone who is not a member or part of a member’s family.
A church is not a public accommodation, as used in the Civil Rights Act. It is not required to give equal access to anyone who wants.
Religious freedom requires allowing a religion to determine what is or is not acceptable behavior. As long as that rule does not endanger someone or violate an important law (don’t cut puppies throats on an altar, for example), it should be allowed.
As noted earlier, this is an article about Great Britain....has nothing to do with the Civil Rights Act.
Mormons discriminate against and refuse temple entry to those members based upon payment of a "full tithe".
Perhaps, religious freedom in Britain has a differing definition than you are espousing.
Your quote: Religious freedom requires allowing a religion to determine what is or is not acceptable behavior....can be taken to mean to allow "freedom" of beheading in Moslem countries.
Oh?
Was it located in ENGLAND???
Not in mine.
We leave the 'worthiness' question up to the partaker: we have an OPEN communion (what a concept!)
Evidently your church 'allows' dancing...